Restoring trust

Last July, Labour inherited one of the worst legacies left by any government. Over a decade of austerity has left Britain worse off than when the Conservatives took office. Naturally, our first priority was and is to put Britain back on track by stabilising our public finances, securing the highest sustainable growth in the G7, fixing our roads, ending our homelessness and housing crises, cleaning up our waterways and rebuilding our health system. Unlike our predecessors, we know we must do more than promise – we must deliver. This project of renewal will require the government’s undivided attention in the years to come. Yet there is a real risk that any progress we make in this parliament is quickly upended – and Westminster’s voting system will be the culprit.

In the UK, public trust in politics and politicians is at a record low, and voter turnout is in long-term decline. So far, first past the post has obscured a seismic shift in British politics – one that progressives ignore at their peril. Voters are sick of Westminster politics as usual and are voting for third parties in record numbers. The 2024general election was the first where four parties won more than 10 percent of the vote each. The combined vote share for both the Conservatives and Labour hit a record low of 58 per cent. As Labour members, this shift should concern us. It is not sustainable for us – or any party –to win power on ever-smaller fragments of the popular vote. In 2024 Labour was right to adopt a ruthless and successful focus on voter efficiency. Yet this also contributed to making 2024 the most disproportionate election on record

The local elections in May showed that, if anything, these trends have accelerated. Mayors and councillors have been elected on as little as 24 per cent and 18 percent of the vote respectively. In Exeter, despite winning the highest number of votes across the county council seats that cover our city, we won no councillors. By looking at the social democracies across Europe that we admire, we know that the more disproportionate elections become, the less satisfied the public are with democracy. Put another way: if people do not get what they vote for, they don’t trust the system.

This is fuel to the fire for antiestablishment parties to Labour’s left and right. With Reform UK capitalising on a crumbling status quo, first past the post puts pressure on the government to make policy with an eye to volatile swing voters in marginal constituencies. But this risks alienating our loyal core voter base, and so accelerating the decline of the two-party vote – in turn resulting in ever-more disproportionate elections and driving greater distrust in democracy. So the cycle continues. In an antiestablishment age, Labour should embrace our historic pragmatism, and refuse to accept the status quo. We must break out of a doom loop that threatens to destabilise British democracy.

In the immediate term, the government is right to deliver on peoples’ priorities: austerity has decimated our public services. People need to feel government can work. We need to respond rapidly to renew the social contract, and we need to drive the economic growth to fund it. But in the years to come, recent history both here and elsewhere suggests voter fragmentation is here to stay. We must not risk the progress Labour makes in this parliament by sticking with an increasingly unfair and unpredictable voting system.

Instead, over the medium term, this government should foster the discovery and development of a political structure that can properly reflect changing voter behaviours by establishing a National Commission for Electoral Reform. A generation ago, during Tony Blair’s first term, the Jenkins Commission built consensus for change. We now need a modern version of this process. Using the vehicle of a commission would enable the government to focus on delivering on our core priorities, whilst simultaneously dealing with a growing structural threat to British democracy. The government could launch an independent commission, allow it to reach its recommendations over the course of a year or two, and then progress this conversation as it sees fit, without tying its hands. While Labour members and elected representatives will work hard to build electoral support and win a second term, given the electoral volatility of voters, it is not impossible to see an outcome that results in a hung parliament. This has already happened twice within the last fifteen years, even with FPTP. In these circumstances, Labour would be well-served if we have shaped and led this conversation, rather than being bounced into it by circumstance.

An independent process would also provide much needed clarity and consensus on a topic of national importance. Electoral reform is too often seen solely through the lens of partisan political benefit, or the defence of a broken status quo by its most recent beneficiaries. Politicians would of course need to be involved in scrutinising such a process, but its recommendations should be based on the national interest: which systems deliver greater stability, greater public satisfaction with democracy, stronger support for change and higher turnout at elections? There is precedent for such a process. In the 1990s,New Zealand ran its own commissions on constitutional change, paving the way for their parliament to adopt a moderate form of PR. Former sceptics of their new proportional system such as Helen Clark have since become some of its strongest advocates.

By leading the change on democratic reform, the New Zealand Labour party thrived under the new system. Meanwhile, despite the rise of the hard-right everywhere, none of our social democratic sister parties across Europe are crying out for first past the post. That should tell us something.

Labour has a proud track record of establishing fair parliaments in Scotland, Wales and London. All these systems combine the best part of first past the post – its local constituency link – with top-up regional representatives to ensure that every voter is equally empowered. Under the last government, we saw the country backsliding, with the introduction of mandatory voter ID and the removal of the option of more representative voting – in the form of the supplementary vote system – in the mayoral elections. These changes were enacted with no public consultation whatsoever. The government should review whether either of these measures were necessary, or merely political tactics for partisan gain.

Public support for fairer parliaments is at record highs, with multiple long-running polls showing majority public support for proportional representation (PR)in Westminster. Parliament itself is not far behind: in December, the Commons voted in favour of PR for the first time in a landmark free vote. The new all-party parliamentary group for fair elections is now the largest in parliament, with over 150 members. I am delighted that its chair, and most of its members, are Labour MPs and peers. With widespread support for change to Westminster’s voting system growing both in and outside Parliament, this issue is not going to go away – and the government has the opportunity to be proactive.

In increasingly uncertain times, one thing is certain: our voting system is not contributing to the trust and stability we need in British politics. Labour has a proud tradition of democratic reform. In the face of those that seek to divide and tear down established democratic norms, we must continue to champion our values as democratic reformers. We are right to deliver on the public’s immediate priorities; an independent review of the electoral system will clear the field to do so. We cannot afford to become defenders of a broken status quo, and we should not risk the legacy of this government on an increasingly dysfunctional voting system. First past the post is not sustainable; not for Labour, and not for the country. We must modernise Westminster and launch a National Commission for Electoral Reform.

Image Credit: Catholic Church England and Wales via Flickr